RickF wrote:A parting note to my long winded reply. I changed my running style after reading "Born to Run". I try to avoid heel-striking but on distances over 8 miles if I'm tired I sometimes find myself landing on my heels. I believe heel striking is a lazy form of running which puts too much impact on bones and joints and leads to a lot of running injuries.

LOL @ "lazy form of running". You want opposite of lazy? Why don't you run in a super crouched position so you can eliminate all high-rate loading?

Ze wrote:LOL @ "lazy form of running". You want opposite of lazy? Why don't you run in a super crouched position so you can eliminate all high-rate loading?

In hindsight "lazy" was a poor choice of words. Anyone who is motivated to go for a run is making an effort to be active and maintain or improve their level of fitness and is not displaying laziness. Landing on the front pads of your feet rather than your heels is more efficient and allows the impact to be transmitted more through muscles and less directly to the bones and joints.

Ze, I'm not familiar with the technique of "super crouched" postion for running or the principle of "high-rate loading". Please elaborate.

And... if you post a reply as a contribution to this thread please answer the original question, do you run?

Your initial assumption that impact forces are inherently bad is wrong to begin with. They're not automatically bad. In fact, for proper bone density, you want some of them. Cyclists sometimes have problems with bone density, but not runners. Special treadmills have been designed for astronauts to force them to get more impact forces than they would without gravity, or else their bones would weaken.

The human body is pretty awesome at adapting, as long as you give it sufficient time to scale and don't go overboard. Body dealing with impact forces is like dealing with altitude - gradually build up and the body will be able to handle high loads - but go straight to 26,000 ft or jump off a building and your body won't ever handle it.

When you run to avoid impact forces / high rate loading, you are going to bend your knees and hips more to compensate and absorb the energy. This can have negative consequences as well. Instead of impact force overloading, you can have more patellafemoral pain (aggravation of cartilage under kneecap) and achilles tendonitis as these areas will get loaded more than more upright loading.

Landing on the balls of your feet is not more efficient. It's less.

In general I would think the "safest" approach for any person is to land midfoot, as it is not at one extreme. More important is to pick a running style that doesn't hurt and combining that with a proper routine that increases mileage gradually, along with many rest days to allow tendons to get back to full strength, and foam rolling / stretching / strengthening.

I do love to run, though right now I've been doing more cycling as my intense endurance, and running 2-3 miles 2 times a week. Had some plantar fascitis / achilles tendonitis issues that had gotten better but then reaggravated playing too much basketball. Has gotten better again so I hope to do a bit more trail running soon.

I do have newer pains, after switching to fore-striking, but they're smaller and less intense than the pains I had when I heal-striked. Muscle pain vs. injury. I've had nothing that can't be attributed solely to delayed onset muscle soreness since the switch.. whereas before, I'd get knee and other leg injuries that would plague me for weeks.

Ze wrote:Your initial assumption that impact forces are inherently bad is wrong to begin with. They're not automatically bad. In fact, for proper bone density, you want some of them. Cyclists sometimes have problems with bone density, but not runners. Special treadmills have been designed for astronauts to force them to get more impact forces than they would without gravity, or else their bones would weaken.

The human body is pretty awesome at adapting, as long as you give it sufficient time to scale and don't go overboard. Body dealing with impact forces is like dealing with altitude - gradually build up and the body will be able to handle high loads - but go straight to 26,000 ft or jump off a building and your body won't ever handle it.

When you run to avoid impact forces / high rate loading, you are going to bend your knees and hips more to compensate and absorb the energy. This can have negative consequences as well. Instead of impact force overloading, you can have more patellafemoral pain (aggravation of cartilage under kneecap) and achilles tendonitis as these areas will get loaded more than more upright loading.

Landing on the balls of your feet is not more efficient. It's less.

In general I would think the "safest" approach for any person is to land midfoot, as it is not at one extreme. More important is to pick a running style that doesn't hurt and combining that with a proper routine that increases mileage gradually, along with many rest days to allow tendons to get back to full strength, and foam rolling / stretching / strengthening.

I do love to run, though right now I've been doing more cycling as my intense endurance, and running 2-3 miles 2 times a week. Had some plantar fascitis / achilles tendonitis issues that had gotten better but then reaggravated playing too much basketball. Has gotten better again so I hope to do a bit more trail running soon.

Ze,

Thanks for sharing about your current running regimen. I agree that a moderate amount of impact is not only good but is necessary for bone/tendon health. I believe it's exaclty that moderate amount of impact that's allowed me to continue running for so many years without any major, long term injuries. I'm also familiar with the NASA study conclusions regarding bone density loss when bodies are deprived of stimulus provided through normal, regular impact. I know everyone is different and I respect each persons freedom to pursue their own form of exercise, running, etc. However I stand by my assertion that heel-striking is not good and is not a natural form of running. Aside from a very small portion of the population, humans would not run with a stride that included landing on their heels if they had to run barefoot like our ancestors did prior to the invention of evo-foam padded air-cushion running shoes. I challenge anyone who thinks heel-striking is natural to take off their shoes and run on pavment or trail (not grass or carpet) and see if landing on your heels feels right. the bottoms of our feet are highly sensitive and most people will avoid contacting their heels and arches on hard, rough surfaces. I understand the foot-strike topic is hotly debated in the track-n-field, marathon, and triathalon communities. Their are doctors and physical therapists on both sides of the debate. We unfortunately don't know which experts are paid by running shoe companies. Maybe a mid-foot or full-foot strike is a good compromise? What I've offered here is my opinion as an exchange of ideas and information, I'm not a doctor, physical therapist, or expert on anyone's running style except maybe my own.

I do not propose that heel striking is "natural". But going down the what is "natural" path - running on pavement, asphalt, and any level non-varying terrain isn't "natural". What most people / scientists don't realize is that a person will change how they run & contact the ground depend on the surface (btw my dissertation was on human impact biomechanics).

Barefoot running on pavement isn't "natural". Neither is running on any surface in thick-soled shoes. Both force motion and loads that aren't anthropologically natural.

On dirt, you don't need to forefoot contact to dissipate the very high rate force component - the ground does it.

The combined ground reaction forces & body positions that occur during running on dirt in general can't be replicated on concrete - regardless of running style.

In a study published in the December 2009 issue of PM&R: The journal of injury, function and rehabilitation, researchers compared the effects on knee, hip and ankle joint motions of running barefoot versus running in modern running shoes. They concluded that running shoes exerted more stress on these joints compared to running barefoot or walking in high-heeled shoes.

I was incorrect in previously stating that barefoot running flexes the knees more, as they apparently are less flexed. I was wrong. But note that the "benefit" is only seen running barefoot, NOT in Vibrams or other minimalist shoes!

Ze wrote:note that the "benefit" is only seen running barefoot, NOT in Vibrams or other minimalist shoes!

That said, my times improved immediately when I went to "low drop" heels. My Flyknits and my Pure Flows are significantly lighter than the Cumulus and Nimbus I was running in prior. Not only have my times improved but my lower legs are less fatigued after from the lower shoe weight. So I can put on more mileage.

No running here, well, long distance anyway. Instead, I sprint up a very steep grade hill about 15 times. It builds mass, which protects the knee, and develops explosiveness, which can save your life at the nth hour. For cardio, I do sandbag training with farmer's carries in deep sand or sled work in deep sand. I also do bear crawls, and drag a 70+ pound bag about 50 meters, and then back, in deep sand. Training in sand, and with sand bags protects joints, and gets benefits of developing both types of muscle fibers. Vo2 max training.